Teddy (left), and Sampson (right)

    • WamGams@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      44
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just a head’s up but not a single police department in the nation DNA tests or even has a spot on their reports to label which specific breed of dog caused the attack, there is also roughly a dozen different breeds on the list of dogs commonly mistaken for pits.

      Anybody telling you pits are responsible for any percentage of dog attacks is lying by giving a number not scientifically achieved.

            • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              2 months ago

              You are not the only person on the Internet. Just because you are no longer interested doesn’t mean this isn’t a valuable contribution. Go do something nice for someone, you owe us for being a dick.

            • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              A year later and you’re still wrong and too far up your own ass to admit it even when confronted with evidence assembled by people more qualified than you’ll ever be

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          When my dumb ass downstairs neighbor hears the kittens playing, she flies into a rage about my pitbull making noise. The hate causes the statistics, not the breed.

            • WamGams@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              The world’s first ever police DNA program started in the UK in 2021, and it was created for dog thefts, not dog attacks.

              https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-57578701

              And seeing that there is no national database of all precinct’s police reports, you will have to go to your police department and see for yourself that they are not even cataloguing the breeds per attack.

              As for your comment that there are 5 dogs that fall under the umbrella term of pit bull, that actually helps my original point that these lists are unscientific. Chihauhas aren’t lumped together with Mexican shorthairs when the numbers are tallied, neither is any dog lumped with their types. These lists also don’t break down which of the pit types are most responsible for the most attacks.

              1. because the numbers aren’t collected by anybody, meaning the lists are lying, and
              2. if the pit types were separated by their actual breed, the numbers would show an average or a slightly higher rate of aggression, not the majority of all attacks.

              I would also point out that almost none of these lists you read online include German Shephards, which is strange since they tend to be the only dog in the US that is commissioned as Police Officer and are frequently attacking people as part of their job. Further evidence that these lists are unscientific and politically motivated.

              • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                not a single police department in the nation DNA tests.

                So you made this statement without knowing if it was true or not as you go on to say that “there is no national database of all precinct’s police reports, you will have to go to your police department and see for yourself”.

                Bad faith arguments always end with “go and find out for yourself”.

                Can I ask what do you think the word breed means? It’s not a specific dog, it’s a term to describe a grouping of dogs (Shepards for example). And out of the 300 plus recognised groupings/breeds of dog, Pitbulls kill more than all of them combined. Even if you split it down to each sub-grouping, the dogs under the umbrella term “Pit Bull” still vastly outstrip all other dogs in attacks and fatalities.

                I would also point out that almost none of these lists you read online include German Shephards, which is strange since they tend to be the only dog in the US that is commissioned as Police Officer and are frequently attacking people as part of their job. Further evidence that these lists are unscientific and politically motivated.

                In this post I provided another commenter a breakdown of fatalities caused by dogs and the graph shows German shepherds specifically cause less than 3% of fatalities over 16 years. Meanwhile the 5 dogs that make up Pit Bulls are responsible for an average of 67%.

                • WamGams@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Again, there is no database of dog genetics that police maintain in the US, unless it was created after 2021.

                  Meaning all the stats you have are based solely on media reports of dog attacks and not actual dog attacks.

                  You can also contact the people compiling the lists. If they respond, they will admit that they do not track the rate of attacks committed by German Shepherds in the line of duty.

                  We also know that Cane Corso’s probably attack a few people per year, yet almost every list excludes them… Because they are counted towards pit bulls.

                  If you can provide an actual scientifically validated list, I am happy to see it. Otherwise your numbers are fiction and you know it.

              • MostRegularPeople@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The American Temperament Test Society tests aggression in dog breeds in controlled environment. Participants self select, so there’s that, and ultimately I think the test says more about the owners than the dogs. Nonetheless, per the ATTS , the american pit bill terrier passed 87% of the time while the Australian shepherd only passed 83% of the time.

      • Cloudless ☼@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        In 2009, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia released a five-year review of dog-bite injuries. The review states that 51 percent of attacks were made by pit bulls.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19644273/

        In 2009, another study was published by the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. The study ran for 15 years and it has concluded that pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Rottweilers are among the most common breeds that cause fatal dog attacks in Kentucky State.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19696575/

        In 2011, the Annals of Surgery published a study, which concluded that Pitbull attacks lead to more expensive hospital bills, higher risk of death, and higher morbidity rates compared to other breeds of dogs.

        https://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx

        • WamGams@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your data was true 13-15 years ago, doesn’t mean it is true today.

            • WamGams@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              15
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s up to you.

              What other subjects do you accept almost 20 year old data on? Do you go back 50 years? What is the cut off for you in all subjects, or is pit bulls the only subject you don’t have a standard for?

              • Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                did pitbull behavior change in 20 years. they suddenly became goody good dogs?

                i’d say it’s relevant until today and well into the future.

          • CMonster@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            You think the dogs have somehow evolved to be less aggressive over a bit more than a decade?

            • WamGams@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              It is quite strange to me that the only time I receive responses to 10 month old comments, whether on here or reddit, it’s only regarding pitt bulls.

              Must be a slow day on r/pitbullhate’s private discord.

      • HawtTism@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Uhm….what about 99% of videos ever posted about someone being attacked by a dog. And nobody is surprised when it’s a pitbull.

        • WamGams@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          To be clear, people who advocate for the extermimation of all bully breeds are not claiming that pitbulls account for 99% of all attacks.

          So right out of the gate you have decided to make the point you are “debating” more extreme than the most extreme right wing nutcases already part of the conversation.

          Better luck rage baiting somebody else. Maybe start out reasonable and then ramp up the insanity slowly instead of coming out of the gate so hot next time.

          • HawtTism@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            To be clear, I said “99% of videos ever posted about someone being attacked by a dog. And nobody is surprised when it’s a pitbull.” YouTube “attacked by dog” - it’s almost always a pitbull. You misconstrued what I said, and twisted it into some crazy “right-wing” topic. You’re simply wrong.

            • WamGams@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m not looking at 99% pit bull attack videos though on YouTube.

              Now, everybody has a different search results targeted directly to them by Google. If Google is only showing you pit bull attacks, it’s because they decided that is the content you are willing to engage with.

              And seeing that you create accounts to argue 8 month old comments that are defending pit bulls, it seems pretty clear that Google has assumed correctly about you.

              • HawtTism@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                I just started using Lemmy. But thanks for responding to an old comment!

    • peregrin5@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      fuck these animals

      Eh the animals did nothing wrong. They didn’t ask to be born as the artificially selected abominations we’ve made them into. Fuck people who continue to breed these animals and don’t spay/neuter their pits.

    • Echolynx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, I wouldn’t say I’m a hater. I just have a healthy skepticism driven by statistics and a distaste for the way the breed is marketed/treated by people.

    • cor@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      breed was responsible for 22.5% of bites across all studies. Mixed breeds were a close second at 21.2% and German Shepherds were the third most dangerous breed, involved in 17.8% of bite incidents.

      where the fuck do you get 60-80%???

      also, 100% of dog fights use pit bulls…

      abused dogs lead to bites….

      aka, it’s the owner’s fault.

    • FuckFascism@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      Never met a mean pit in my life you’re just off your meds again; if you treat a dog like shit it’ll act like shit if you treat it well it will act well most of the time. And your statement about pitbulls being fighting dogs is bs they were bred to quite literally “pit bulls” my guy.

      • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        So many studies posted here and you decide to throw up anecdotal evidence like it means anything.

        Why are so many randoms digging up this year old post? Go share your opinions on live threads instead.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is bullshit. In more than half of dog bites the breed is unknown. So that’s the end of your line of reasoning. You simply don’t know and cannot say their “nature.”

      They were bred for hunting. Some people used some of them for fighting dogs years after they were first bred and used for decades as hunting dogs. Of the few that were used in fighting, dogs that bit humans were not allowed to fight and so were euthanized

      Edit: abject know-nothings and science deniers downvoting me.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Every study states it itself. There’s always a category for “unknown,” and if for some reason there isn’t such a category, you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push pseudo genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.

          Your narrative from Wikipedia is some hysterical author focusing on one group of dogs. It’s also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics, so let’s assume they were bred for fighting other dogs at a dog fight, so what? What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It’s a stupid argument you’re making.

          • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            you know the source you are reading is some full of shit organization that at best is misleading people just to collect money and at worst is only talking about dogs so they can push genetic science including eugenics and blood lible.

            Evidence that this Wikipedia article is any of the things you are rambling about here? Or do you just dismiss all Wikipedia articles.

            It’s also undeniable that training is an exponentially more significant factor in animal behavior than genetics.

            More unfounded statements, again I ask you for evidence. Show me something that indicates that an animal’s nature can be completely overriden by training; then tell that to Siegfried and Roy.

            What does that have to do with dogs biting humans in their own homes or at the park? It’s a stupid argument you’re making.

            You don’t even have an argument, evidence and dare I say it a brain.

      • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They were bred explicitly for fighting. First fighting bulls in pits, hence Pitbull. That was outlawed. It was deemed unfair to pit different animals against each other in a fight. So pitbulls were then bred to fight other dogs.

        Pitbulls were killed when they wouldn’t fight, or were beat by another dog. The breeders didn’t care about them bitting humans. They wouldn’t keep them as pets as they were for fighting.

    • illi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d love a study on what kind of masters the bloodthirsty dogs have. I’m willing to bet those dogs had masters that encouraged the behavior or got them because the breed is macho and never intended to be responsible about it.

        • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, pitbulls aren’t dangerous for the occurrence of attacks but because when they do they cause the most damage. Most people don’t report a small dog if they cause no major damage.

        • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This graphic lumps together at least 8 breeds under the umbrella of “pitbull”, which is rather strange. Sure, if you group many breeds into the same category before comparing it to a singular breed it’s going to look bad.

          Also, you need to show per-capita to prove anything here. Sure, the absolute number may be high, but how does that compare to the absolute number of pitbulls? How does that compare to the per-capita of other breeds?

            • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Again, this is why we need per capita instead of an absolute number. We are comparing an umbrella term to something more specific.

              We need data that shows they are more likely than other dog breeds. This does not show that, as we don’t know the percentage chance one pit bull may attack vs any other breed based on this information.

              This is the problem with statistics. If we select the right method, group things the right way, from the right time, and use specific methods we can prove anything we want. That’s why an understanding of how the field works is so important.

              Sorry for the late reply btw, and thank you for continuing this conversation in good faith

              • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry for the late reply btw, and thank you for continuing this conversation in good faith.

                All good man. Always happy to have these discussions and it’s nice to find someone willing to engage in good faith rather than anger fueled rantings. Feel free to take as long as you need too.

                In response to your comment. I can agree that data can be twisted to present a false truth, which is why we need to pull from a variety of data points to construct a clearer image of what is happening.

                But with the information at hand it’s my opinion that this specific grouping of dogs makes up the majority of deaths caused yearly (in the US anyways) and even if we were to list each specific dog instead of breed groupings the numbers of fatalities would still show that Pitbulls cause more deaths than any others.

                I also want to state that I am not calling for the extermination of all Pitbulls across the country, I just want laws to ensure that only trained individuals have access to them. All dogs attack, but pit bulls seem to be dangerous as they lock their jaws and never release.

                Again, thanks for engaging me in this discussion. It’s a breath of fresh air here.

    • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      I did not call everyone a dog rasict, I called the person say it was good that pitbull were being put down in the UK a dog rasict. But by your logic, we should have killed all Germans in WW2 because Germany was the home on the Nazi party and killed millions of people, but that’s wrong because not every Germany killed a person. And to say that we should kill something because it’s “in there nature” is harmful to all life because it sets an unrealistic expectation of what it is like. I’m not gonna deny that pitbulls attack people, but a dog rarely attacks people for nothing, and often the reason is out of fear or abuse.

        • anon987@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are over 1300 recognized dog breeds. And one category, pitbulls, is responsible for over 70% of all serious dog bites.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dogs aren’t people. We kill it eliminate troublesome breeds/species all the time. Ex: Japanese hornet

        • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Japanese hornet was an invasive species to the Americans and thus was removed, but it’s not being exterminated in mass in Japan and other areas the hornets call home. And for you to say that because an animal isn’t human is basically saying it has no soul and doesn’t feel emotions, or at least that how you come across.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. No proof souls exist
            2. Are you a strict vegan? Otherwise you recognize animals are below humans.
            3. Animals obviously feel emotions.